Posted
by
michael
on Thursday February 07, 2002 @05:38AM
from the click-here-to-renew-your-license-to-govern dept.

mpawlo writes: "According to Swedish IDG.se, the president of Microsoft Germany is outraged over the Bundestux campaign. The campaign aims to put Linux in the Bundestag (German Parliament). He has sent a letter to the campaign workers - some of them members of the German parliament - stating that Microsoft is not a threat to democratic values (as argued by the campaign). Kurt Sibold also states that the only thing achieved through the campaign is a public slander of Microsoft." Also reported by the Register, if you prefer English.

I hope the swedish gov. will do the same. Eventualy , move away from MS. Unless they prove themself beeing better but I doubt they will change into a more useroriented businessmodel. They are used to the money. But one day it will be gone.

First off, the first link points to a Swedish news site (instead of German newswires like Stern or Heise), but the debate is raging in Germany. Microsoft was taken off guard by this petition, and by the amount of support it has been receiving. Thus the "wounded bear" attitude in Microsoft's open letter.

Second, this is about Linux on existing computers, a market Apple definitely does NOT want to enter. Apple makes hardware, and writes its own interface above Darwin/FreeBSD. In Apple's eyes, the OS is only there to sell its own hardware, not for profit. But this isn't the place to beat THAT horse carcass.

Third, AFAICT the only one seeing this as a War is Microsoft. Microsoft is playing a Monopoly/Risk sort of game, where the winner drives all other players from the board. Apple is playing a totally different game, one where you win by being the best/coolest/owning the McGuffin. Linux advocates are sometimes playing one game, sometimes playing the other, but rarely do Linux users/advocates all play the game, or the same rules, or share the same goals.

I personally find the goal of the petition worth supporting. My personal taste runs towards Apple, but I'm willing to see the massive benefits of using existing hardware (if for no other reason than to save landfill space). And Linux is, at the moment, the best option.
Oh, some links to other reports, in German:

Are you implying Microsoft will dwindle and be a 'normal' player in the market in the future?

I think nobody can state this with certainty.
There are too many variables in the 'equation'.

So to speak.

For once there is the.NET campaign.
While the idea of a common development
platform accessible by almost any language
(that has a compiler for it) is brilliant; --
The thought of Microsoft controlling the
Intermediate Language (some sort
of Esperanto for developers, only one-way)
gives me the shudders. I mean: instead of
processor manufacturers giving out
C-compilers for their architectures, Microsoft
could dictate to processor manufacturers,
which instructions would be supported or
not. Okay, this is only a worst case scenario.
I'm probably way off here.. hopefully.;)

Windows will not go away so easily.
If Microsoft is successful pushing.NET, maybe they could also introduce
their own version of a network protocol stack,
that could gradually replace IP. Again, this
is wildly speculative. But none the less, it
could be possible.

Back to Topic:Bundestux.de has made some quite
bold statements. I don't know if this will
help them. On the other hand, if they act too
timid they'd be ignored for sure. While I like
the idea. If they reach their goal, it could
backlash: dedicated MS Windows users will
feel discriminated. That's for sure.

Unfortunately I don't know a solution. Maybe they
should leave the choice to the members of
parliament themselves. If some decide to
use Windows, or Linux, or MacOS in their own
offices, let them.

What do I hate about Microsoft?
And why do I hate Microsoft? I mean,
I bought (legally, no pirating) licenses for
DOS5, DOS6, DOS6.22, Win3.1, Win95,
Win95b, Win95OSR2, Win98, Win98SE!
I have the handbooks and keys to prove it!
In the last 10 years I assembled about five
PCs and installed all these OS's by hand.
Granted, I've also installed FreeBSD and got
a stack of FreeBSD versions (from 1.0 till 3.1).
And the computer I'm typing this on is an
iMac (not the new one) running OSX.2.

But I'm a sucker for computer games,
especially for the PC, and Windows is the
platform where most of my coveted games
are running on.

So why do I hate Microsoft?

Because they almost force me to
'upgrade'! Which is a misnomer, because I
have to acquire a new license each time.
As I perceive it, they use their OS and their
applications as leverage. Like a knife where
its handle and blade is replaced turn by turn.

They introduce new features in their next
office package. Because Windows has to
run this, they introduce a new Windows version to cope with these new features.
Then they have to improve the new Windows
version, because it is always buggy
on a new release. This, of course, leads to
a new Office version, which interfaces with
the improved Windows version better. And
nobody can stay behind. Everybody has to
keep the pace, because newer versions of
MS Word have a hard time reading documents written with older versions of
MS Word.

This is especially true with environments
like parliament offices, where I think document exchange is important. It is certainly
possible to exchange documents between
different versions of MS Word, but I think MS
is speculating on lazyness and peer pressure
here. ("please upgrade, I'm sick of manually
converting your old stuff to read it...")

And I have to tag along. Despite not even
using any Office package! I'm using my PCs
for gaming only! To make matters
worse, the next big thing is published by
Microsoft itself: Dungeon Siege. ARRGH!

should be using open source software. Yeah Germany. Apart from the fact that open source software IS of good enough quality now to be practicle to use and deploy it would save the tax payer MILLIONS of (£$E) every year, create a host of jobs AND improve the very software that was being deployed.

Without the source how can a government be sure that the software cannot be used to spy on them or to be used to attack them? Also governments hold onto inforation for a long time, such things as census data are held for a century before being relased. Wouldn't do much good if in the future it was a case of "Here's the 2011 census, but no-one had been able to read it since 2015"

Saves big zorkmids on license fees (the tender spot for M$, government is a HUGE customer and can establish the trend for business and education software standards used, see all those zorkmids departing the pocketbook)

Costs some zorkmids for support and mods, but you actually get support and mods you want, rather that support and mods the closed vendor feels like providing you, creating competition in the support market (a GoodThing)

Built-in extortion of government having to "upgrade" (and shell out really big zorkmids) every few years for upgrades because M$ announces it will no longer support Windows n

Customer driven market. What the customer wants/needs isn't anticipated (and turned out in an incarnationof one-size-fits all), but tailored to the needs of the customer. If the Bundestag says "we want x that does y, in z way, then someone can step up and do it, it may take time, but of course others can benefit as it adds to open source.

As to suggestions that open source isn't good quality or pracicable (muchly as part of M$ whispering campaign against Linux, Open Source, etc.), much of that would be addressed by an expanding market.

it would save the tax payer MILLIONS of (£$E) every year, create a host of jobs

Ummm... contradiction anyone? I mean, I can see how it would save the taxpayers money initially, because they don't have to pay licensing fees. However, if it creates jobs in the government IT sector, how is that going to save them money? It will only save them money if the licensing fees exceed the salaries of the additional workers (this is the same old TCO debate, no need to re-hash it).

The other economic factor is the all-too-often neglected factor: boredom. From time-to-time, economies get bored, and then they become depressed because they have nothing to do. So far, the only answers we've found are socialism (New Deal, WPA, CCC, TVA etc.) and militarism (Nazis, Italian Fascists, etc.). Militarism has the virtue of providing a quick fix by reducing the number of job applicants and giving workers something to do after the conflict (rebuilding). Socialism has the virtue of killing people more slowly and in an apparently civilized manner (increased alcoholism and obesity of people on the doll, inferior socialized medecine, etc). The FDR brand of socialism was really not as bad as the wealth-transfer version used in the "great society". A lot of the New Deal projects actually produced work of enduring quality.

So, the real question is what will we *do* when Microsoft isn't there to tax and spend? Do you really think the government's tax and spend will be better than MSFTs? When was the last time MSFT plowed billions of dollars into a missile program? I say, down with the EU, up with MSFT. Buy your MSFT shares today, and join the Monetary Democratic Republic of Microsoft. Vote for officers that you can trust. They promise citizens that they will use your tax dollars to create cool things like the X-box, and not build any weapons systems unless their competitors force them too.

Do it today! Your company is calling you. Don't let the Germans get bored again!!!

>In the light of the fact that governments tend to need to interact with other bodies, I would say they need to use what most other people are using. Which is MS Office.

Wrong. They need to use the format that most people can use, which is NOT MS Office, but a standard. it's the document format that counts, not the software. There are still people who prefer to use WP, StarOffice, etc or use a "non-ms-compliant" OS . Governments should not force people to use certain software, ESPECIALLY commercial software. Pick a format that can be read by WP, StarOffice, and Word.

I have heard a lot of comments about the standard thing, with office documents. What, pray tell is the standard for office type documents? (really, this is a serious question!)

Take the usecase that I encounter. I need to send sometimes a nicely formatted document to someone else, for them to edit, and send back to me (ruling pdf out). What do you suggest I send it in, if not *.doc, etc? HTML? As far as I am aware, the only standards are quite inadequate, such as RTF or the like.

Perhaps some focus on what the standard actually is, rather than the fact we should use it would be useful.

Depends on how much formatting is actually needed, and frankly I know shit about document formats. Formatting is only a means to an end (making the document better to read). So the real question is: is there a document format that allows enough formatting?

That may mean that some hyperdandy special effects cannot be used any more.

I'm not sure why government doc have to be "nicely formated" or what it even is, are we talking about adding a 1/72 inch of leading between lines or what? So basicaly I agree with you, additionaly XHTML/CSS alows for better archivability of documents as you can difine what your tags realy mean.
Would it not be great if they also used CVS for laws and regulations? then we common types would only have to down the dif's instead of a 100 page regulation evertime they change a comma to a semi-colon or add one sentence.

HTML/XML. Given the right office suite (I know MSOffice can do this, not too sure about Star/OpenOffice) users can edit these documents any way they like. Sure, the resulting HTML may not be nice and slim enough for the web, but it's more than adequate for office use.

Right this moment, you would probably have to use MS Word format (in the real world). With the newest beta versions of OpenOffice I wouldn't even be too sad about that. I haven't had any trouble with Word documents for some time.

Fairly soon in Germany, however, the format of choice could very well be StarOffice format, and that's why Microsoft is so worried. They know that if the government starts using StarOffice, then companies doing business with the government (ie. nearly everyone) will soon be using StarOffice if for no other reason than to be compatible with the folks at the Bundestag. The only barrier to loading StarOffice on a computer is disk space. StarOffice itself is very inexpensive (and it can be installed on multiple machines), and StarOffice has a GPLed cousin OpenOffice which is Free. Both use the same document formats.

For a while most folks will probably have copies of both MS Word and StarOffice, but come upgrade time the cost of Microsoft Office will almost certainly seem like a big chunk of change. After all, MS Office is good, but if your clients and customers (and the government) are reasonably likely to have a copy of StarOffice, then paying for MS Office is just one more added expense.

The fact that StarOffice was originally written in Germany probably isn't hurting its case either.

If StarOffice takes off, then Microsoft is in big trouble. Not only does StarOffice completely destroy the market for Microsoft's Office cash cow, but it paves the way for alternative OSes like Linux or Solaris. No doubt that's why Sun is giving StarOffice away for free.

That's what you advise here. Your argumentation goes: There are so many people using Word for 'office type' documents, so if i want to send a document, i better use Word, cause then it's in a common format and will look the same on everyones screen (which is wrong, by the way, different versions of Word might display your document in different ways or not at all). Then you go on to say everybody should follow this reasoning, by declaring.doc the evident standard. But that means nothing will change, since noone will switch from Word to alternatives, alternative standards won't be established (lacking a userbase), and we will have to put up with Microsofts antics whenever they decide they need to sell another version of Word.

What we need is an open standard. To see why just look at the internet. TCP/IP works so well, that you don't even have to think about it. That is because everyone who implements a TCP/IP stack better plays by the rules, or he won't play at all, and his customers will turn on him if it screws up. If you tried to sell a TCP/IP stack that mangled IP-Packets from older TCP/IP stacks, to make everyone go and buy your new software, it wouldn't work, because everyone could see it's you who violates the standards. But with Word Microsoft does exactly that, because they don't even stay true to their own standards.
--

We are not talking about maintenance jobs. Linux, properly deployed, should actually lower maintenance costs. We are talking about programming jobs. Linux would allow the local software market to flourish instead of being tied to a handful of companies in the United States. Why should the Germans spend their money on U.S. software when they can get Linux solutions from a local German vendor (at a lower price).

For far less than a Microsoft solution the Bundestag could get a custom solution based on Linux and other open standards. This money they spend will even stay in their own economy (meaning that they will get the bulk of it back in taxes).

Let's face it, the reason that this appears to have actual supporters in the Bundestag is because it makes good political sense. Not only would using Linux lower the cost of running the government, but it would support the German economy.

I don't think that many government workers are likely to lose their jobs. There will still be plenty to do, the difference will be that much of their work will no longer be wasted caring for fragile Windows PCs. However, if I worked in IT for the Bundestag I would brush up on my Linux skills right away just in case.

Though I don't use it enough as I should, I thought one of the benefits to Linux/(insert other Open Source OS here) was that once it was up and running, only needed minimal maintenance (as opposed to the bloated effect of Microsoft).

I think the idea is that they may do some of their own development or localization (translation into German) of open source software. I don't know that open source requires any less IT support than Windows, but it doesn't require paying licensing fees, and the money that might normally be spent for licenses could be spent to hire programmers instead.

Governments have large enough budgets that it often makes sense to roll their own, rather than pay licensing fees. This is especially true when open source programs already exist that can be modified for the government's needs, rather than them having to start from scratch.

Closed source software also creates jobs, but these often aren't in the country that is buying the software, and you're also paying for high executive salaries.

Choosing software JUST because it's open sourced is just as bad as choosing software just because it's closed.

No it isn't. Not if you're a government: it's a really bad idea to give a commercial entity complete control over all of your documents (which are, or should be, public). I'm no open source / free software zealot by a long stretch of the imagination, but I've never understood why governments do this. IMHO, your public responsibilities as a government agency far outweigh the reduced ease of use civil servants may experience when working with something that isn't Microsoft.

Not if you're a government: it's a really bad idea to give a commercial entity complete control over all of your documents (which are, or should be, public)

It's a bad idea even if the commercial entity is based in your country, it's an even worst idea to do this with a foreign owned commercial entity.Quite often government data is kept private for a period of time, then made public. The last thing you want is for this data to end up in a format which is 10, 20, 50, 100 years obsolete....

I've never understood why governments do this. IMHO, your public responsibilities as a government agency far outweigh the reduced ease of use civil servants may experience when working with something that isn't Microsoft.

Assuming Microsoft stuff actually is easy to use in the first place, which is debatable. Even the "everyone uses it" argument ceases to mean anything which the national government of a large country uses something else.

Well, ok, but at least they already *know* how to use Word. You won't believe how resistant "ordinary users" are to learning something new.

How can they possibly cope with something like MS word, which has been through several different versions in the last few years?The same people would be made fun of if they made as much of a fuss about anything else.

That's totally untrue, for purposes of this argument. If you're a Word 1.0(Mac) "power user", then you will be TOTALLY lost in WordXP, and have to relearn the location and names of almost every function you use. Since this is the case, you may as well switch to Staroffice or whatever. If all you want to do is type a memo, sure, there won't be any migration problems - but there won't be any to StarOffice, either.

You're forgetting that most users aren't "power users". Also, most "power users" tend to be able to learn a new piece of software rather easily, because they're not afraid of computers (like ordinary users are).

Well, that is what I meant. Microsoft control the document format and that, I think, is one reason why government agencies should avoid using Microsoft products. I'm all for freedom and doing things any way you want, but I feel very strongly about forcing civil servants to save their documents in an open file format.

That, and making them use software that doesn't have any sneaky back doors in it. At least with open source, you can spot them if they're there.

Microsoft has no more control over documents I create in Word than you do. I can choose to save them in any format I damned well please, be that straight text, ms word, rtf, wordperfect.

The big issue with any closed formats is that they become obsolete very fast. Goverments work slowly and they need to keep archives for a long time. For example, today we can read the documents that were created during WWII to study the history. Some documents are kept secret for 50 years, before they are released to the public.

For example, today we can read the documents that were created during WWII to study the history. Some documents are kept secret for 50 years, before they are released to the public.

50 years isn't the longest, the 1901 UK census was recently released after 100 years. Also even old documents which are not kept secret can be very important. e.g. to ensure that the copies of statutes and court rulings are acurate.

Exactly. Word is an excellent word processor, if not the best word processor around. It can read or write documents in RTF, HTML, Text, or a number of proprietry formats (including those developed by Corel, and Lotus, for example)

The problem people have is with the.doc format, which single-platform, secret, and can contain malicious code. If you write a document in word's native format, there's a good chance you won't be able to read it after a few years.

There is a reasonably easy way to fix this-- email all the Word users you know with a file containing an "OnClose" function which changes the default file-save-format to RTF or HTML.

I can't remember the exact code I use, but the basis is to use VBA's inherent insecurity to change people's default file format.

Countries because of Free/Open-Source Software's independance with respect to other countries/companies agendas. With F/OS Software, the German Bundestag can be sure that nobody will be able to use its own computers as a lobbying tool.

Or even worst, hold the entire country to ransom or use their own computers against them militarily.

The arrogance of Microsoft is just amazing. They keep trying to make us believe that they have changed their ways, but they really haven't.

What will it take for them to get it into their heads that they are just a supplier? If I found out that one of my clients was seriously considering an alternative product, I would be there grovelling, pointing out the benefits of staying with my company, maybe try to negociate a discount. But no, Microsoft are outraged! They've been slandered!

You would have though they would have learned from the Licence 6.0 fiasco. It's nice to see that the europeans (at least France, Germany and the UK) have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and consider alternatives. Why isn't this happening in the US?

It's nice to see that the europeans (at least........ the UK) have the guts to stand up to Microsoft.

Erm, from where i'm sitting, all I can see is this bizarre threesome consisting George Bush, President Blair and Bill Gates. And Mr. Blair is the GimpBoy peforming ludicrous ass-li.... anyway, i get carried away with myself.

The UK gov have just signed deals with MS for software for parliamant and the National Health Service. Oh, but dont worry..... 'Ol Tony got a great deal from his bestest mate Bill.

The UK gov have just signed deals with MS for software for parliamant and the National Health Service.

OK. But actually I was thinking about The Infrastructure Forum, which represents many big IT purchasers in the UK, including some government departments. See here [bbc.co.uk] and here [tif.co.uk]. To my knowledge nothing like this exists in the US.

Time for the free software advocates to freakout over all the governments discriminating against their products by chosing Microsoft. It's disturbing Microsoft is bold enough to think that they have enough voice to oppose any hint of a drift from their systems and label it discrimination against their products.

It's nice to see that the europeans (at least France, Germany and the UK) have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and consider alternatives. Why isn't this happening in the US?

Bear in mind that this is a protest against the German government's reliance on closed source (i.e. Microsoft), not a statement that Germany is open source friendly.

Perhaps the difference between Germany/Europe and the USA is that Europeans are more inclined to take their grievances straight to their (federal) parliament rather than to their local (state) representatives. I'm not making a value judgement about either system, just mentioning that the USA is more region/state-oriented than most European countries.

Incidentally, the statement in this petition that the UK is pro-open source is highly spurious. The British President - sorry, sorry, technically he's still known as the Prime Minister - is so pro-Bill that it's actually embarrasing. Some UK government departments have made noises about looking at open source, but that mostly seems to be a negotiating tool to get cheaper Microsoft licenses, just as the mention of the UK leading the way in open source in this petition is intended to stoke the fires of Anglo-German rivalries. Politics, all politics.

You would have though they would have learned from the Licence 6.0 fiasco. It's nice to see that the europeans (at least France, Germany and the UK) have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and consider alternatives.

Sort of, there are obvious exceptions such as the UK NHS deal.

Why isn't this happening in the US?

Microsoft is a major earner of foreign currency to the US for one thing///

We allow GM foods of shaky nutritional quality and proprietary GM seeds that wreak havok on regular crops by crossbreeding with them. The EU bans this stuff, the US says we don't even have a right to know if we're getting GM crops.

Trademark lawsuits between legal firms and individuals with the same name have shown that, in the US, you don't have the right to your own name.

Er, yes, and if I found out my competitors were slandering my name and calling me undemocratic, I'd complain.

Except many of the signitories are actually the client, not a competitor. I think most suppliers would act differently in this situation.

or do you find it a bit difficult to step back from problems and look at them with an open mind?

Since you are insinuating things about me, I'll do the same for you. I suggest that you've not been in the situation of being directly responsible for a major client account when that client is seriously considering alternatives.

How you deal with a customer who's considering alternatives is a matter of strategy. You need to evaluation who within the client organization is opposed, what their influence is, and how you can best counter that influence.

My first reaction to this response from Microsoft is that it's the stupidist thing they could possibly have done. They could have just passed this off as a bunch of left wing crazies raising a ruckus, but now the petition is big news and has real cedibility. Bad mistake.

On the other hand, the Microsoft.de guy is obviously much closer to the situation than I am and clearly feels that his response is the correct one. Certainly he's more qualified to judge this than me. Time will tell.

This case is a bit different because the German government is even more of a monopoly than Microsoft. Nearly everyone does business with their government, and if the government asks for documents in StarWriter format, you don't send them a Word document.

That's why Microsoft is up in arms, they know that if the German government starts using (and mandating) StarOffice then they are likely to see sales of the German edition of MS Office plummet. Even if relatively few machines in the Bundestag are converted it could have a totally devastating effect due to the millions of folks that are required to share documents with the Bundestag.

The fact that MS Office is somewhat more featureful than StarOffice won't matter one bit, because if you are dealing with the government the most important feature is using the same Office suite that they are using. The fact that StarOffice is a good product that is available for free (and that was originally made in Germany) doesn't hurt either. If the government were to switch, it probably wouldn't take too long for StarOffice to become the official German Office suite. The only reason that Microsoft keeps mentioning Linux as their number one threat is that they don't want to tip people off about StarOffice. Changing your operating system is hard, and requires you to learn a whole new set of programs. Replacing MS Office with StarOffice is much easier, and it carries almost all of the same financial benefits of a full migration to Linux (Windows is included in the price of nearly all machines MS Office isn't).

Governments should be using software they can trust, and trust is earned, never gained.

Windows has some good technology in it, and it is nowdays a halfway-decent product. The problem isnt windows, its Microsoft.

You just plain cant trust Microsoft, one bit. You dont evven have to ascribe to malevolence. I'm not saying they are nessesarily evil, I am saying they are unreliable. Their attitude to fixing their broken and insecure software (whatever proportion of it you think fits that description) is poor to non-existant, and getting worse. And if they arent going to take the US government seriously (DoJ) then we know they dont even care about any other government, once the licence fees have been paid up.

Governments should be using software they can trust, and trust is earned, never gained.

This would tend to exclude proprietary software, especially propriatary software which does not originate from within their own nation.Without an ability to actually see the souce code you'd be in effect asking a government to put faith into a foreign commercial entity. Why should a (not corrupt) government even think of doing this?

It's not about Linux or Windows being better or cheaper.
The US has admitted that they spy their allies.
So why using an US system ? That's a raving security problem. You never know how much backdoor-infested such a system might be. And even code audits won't help with a system with millions of lines of code. They won't never find any decent hidden backdoor.
The Linux question is about security not about money. However nobody admits this because they don't want to piss off the US.

Speaking from experience, the worst security problem is the users themselves, not some back door a US agency snuck into the software you use. Some years ago, a friend of mine got himself a nice old laptop that was no longer being used over where his father worked. As soon as he got it, he took it to me so we could figure out how to turn it into a portable music making device. It turned out that nearly all of the software was still installed and that no one had bothered to wipe the hard disk before giving away the computer. Documents were easily recovered by using Undelete. Needless to say, we were amazed at this...

From the petition:
* South Korea just ordered 120.000 open source office solutions and is looking to save up to 80% of previous costs.
* Great Britain plans the mandatory introduction of open source software in the public sector.
* The development of secure software with openly accessible source codes plays a central role within the EU commision's IT initiative "e-europe".

It also seems they didn't do their research right. Great Britain is *not* planning the mandatory introduction of open source software in the public sector.

There have been a couple of initiatives examining the suitability of various open source systems in the public sector (as an example, they just started looking at open source as a potential component of the next police 'IT platform'), but they're by no means about to throw out the massive investment they have in all government departments, merely in order to jump toward open source.

This is a translation of the open letter from Microsofts German Head, Kurt Siebold. I am native German, excuse the bad english, if i got things wrong, its my fault and not my intention:

Translation:

Dear Sirs,

i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."

In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".

I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.

Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.

But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?

Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.

What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.

Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.

In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".

I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.

No, this is not a correct conclusion to draw.

However, for a democratic system to work, nobody must be excluded from participating in democratic processes. Nobody must be excluded from disseminating information, based on whether or not they can afford a specific piece of software, nobody should be forced to accept a specific software license to participate in a democracy.

Microsoft has historically, is an important principle in their business model, excluded those who do not accept their license from using systems developed by Microsoft. Whether or not this acceptable at all, may be an issue for the open market, but it certainly is not acceptable in the context of democracy.

Free Software is built on other principles, and therefore, it is better suited for governmental use. Linux is just one implementation of these principles. You are free to make another implementation, and you are free to make other implementations of the same systems. This freedom is essential to fulfil democratic duties. If Microsoft is unable to ensure these freedoms, then Microsoft products must be abandoned.

My first real experience with LINUX came at the Uni of Stuttgart. Almost every lab/computer pool is running linux. I am sure other Unis here in Germany are doing the same. I dont want to flame but i recall the remarks of one German that a **** system like Windows would never be made in Germany, its too unstable. I can only agree with him as i see the Germans's passion for precision, stability and quality. You decide which OS come naturally to their minds.

Now they are on the receiving end, they are outraged... in my opinion this is outright hypocritical behaviour... Perhaps they should learn their lesson. It is never EVER a good idea to try to look good by throwing dirt at competitors. The only way for them to go is to show they are better by creating better products and take a more modest attitude.

What's that old cliche`..what's good for the goose is good for the danger?

I find it interesting MS is going so far as to be saying they're being discriminated against by comments made about Microsoft.

Wasn't it fairly recently Ballmer and those of his ilk in the MS empire were saying Linux / open software was 'unamerican' and 'communist'?? They oviously don't mind criticizing when they're playing hardball or violating antitrust laws but if they're on the end of the comments, they're so offended and being discriminated against.

Speaking of anti-trust laws. Though convicted, have they yet said 'gee, guess we did it.' or so much as 'sorry'. I don't believe they yet acknowledge it, even to themselves. Guess that's why I have little use for them.

What are you talking about? No one said anything in defense of communism. The point is that MS thinks it's fine when they slander Free Software as "communist" ans "un-American", but when someone says using MS software in a public institution is a Bad Idea, suddenly they're being "slandered".

That's a spurious argument and you know if. The Soviet Union (dunno what Russia says it is) and China say they're communist, just like the US says it's a capitalist country, but none of them are right. None of the "Red" countries have ever practiced anything close to communism. They've simply used it as a convenient way to justify not giving the lower classes anything. Other countries did the same by simply saying "you're peasants, we're the rulers, suffer."

But really, none of that matters even matters.

Any country where people are vanished frequently, or where they're executed for having a photocopier, it unlikely to be a happy one, regardless of the label for their economic system.

Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but am I the only one who felt a chill at the sight of a totalitarian regime's name placed before "Germany?" Anyway, the first thought that came to mind was that a Microsoft Reich would have a Fuhrer, not a President.

I don't have a problem with Microsoft applications and operating systems being used by the German government. I have a problem if the Bundestag install Suse and StarOffice everywhere.

I want a variety of systems, ok, it may not be quite so easy to manage, but it means that your complete network doesn't get trashed because of one stupid vulnerability.

However, in crtical systems (either because of availability or confidentiality) then I want open source. Even there, I would like to see multiple system types though, i.e., OpenBSD as well as Linux.

Mind you, Microsoft applications and operating systmes are far from cheap. Buy them with OLP and you keep paying. Buy them as a one-off and there is a lifetime on the software before you pay for upgrades.

>> Open Source software," he continues, "is not per se a guarantee of free competition."

This is true, microsoft embraces and extends open source software all the time. BSD socket code and kerberos come to mind. But never anything with a GPL license.

It is so hilarious that they are claiming to be discriminated against, after all those years of Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. I bet a lot of companies complained that microsofts tactics were unfair too. And the courts agreed. Microsoft is a convicted criminal, on 7 counts that are just short of the same charges that they use to put away mob bosses for life.

Microsoft should just consider this to be an innovative method of competition. Open standards, learn them and love them.

Fully open file formats and compliance with non encumbered open standards is the future. Microsoft has already proven time and time again that proprietary software with hidden code is not secure. It is more expensive and it just isn't as flexible. Every other piece of computer equipment got 10 times cheaper and 100 times more powerful over the past 10 years, but the software is no faster now than then. And it costs more, it is now the most expensive single part of a computer system.

Of course there was a reaction to this inequitable pricing and the illegle tactics required to enforce the monopoly. Free software. The vast majority of open source software is written by highly experienced computer experts who are sick and tired of dealing with computers that look pretty but constantly crash and lose work.

Look for computer science to begin rapidly advancing with open sharing and improvements to be made with total comunications in the precise languages used to communicate our intentions to computers.

I'm kind of curious that the the issues of ordering desktop PCs without paying for a Microsoft OEM Licence could be interesting. A number of vendors will still insist on you buying the system with an OS, which they will then refund you for, if returned unopened.

I don't know how this works now in this world of preinstalled systems but it was a legal entitlement that several local people tested. Getting that refund wasn't easy though. Maybe the Bundestag will do better!

There wqa a big fuss in Germany about the Microsoft Tax. If you had a shrink wrapped MS package with your system, you could return it with the statement that the O/S s/w had been erased and the supplier was obliged to give you your money back.

This was actually based on the M/S end-user licence that states if you do not agree, you may return the software unopened for a full-refund. At first there was a fight about it as the system vendor wanted the entire machine back. The more sensible ones realised that it was a good way to bypass the MS tax for them too.

At the same time a grey market developed in OEM s/w and licences and software. Microsoft Germany didn't like it but individuals had no restrictions about the resale of an OEM licence (I guess this is what the US people call "doctrine of first sale").

He sees his bonuses greatly diminish if the German government adopts Linux.

Seriously, it really is an important issue if interaction with government entities requires the use of specific software available only from a single vendor, and that is what is increasingly happening. Microsoft can stay in the race by scrupulously opening up their file formats so that real interoperability with non-Microsoft applications is possible. But, so far, Office and other Microsoft applications still produce files whose format does not appear to be completely documented and that cannot be read and manipulated reliably by other applications.

I find it ironic and amusing that America, which prides itself the bastion of freedom is now behind in seeing the logic behind open source and the freedom it is trying to uphold.

A few centuries ago, America's forefathers unshackled itself from a perceived tyranny that now is at the forefront of a similar fight. While European kingdons then tried to consolidate their power over the conquered lands, America was leading in the fight for democracy that pretty much erased the power of monarchs in the 20th century. With democratic power being undermined by multinational corporations that can buy their way into laws that are favorable to them, I find it amusing that those nations that favored power to the few are now espousing freedom for the many.

Before they were called monarchies. Now they are called multinational corporations. And the tables have turned.

This is not exactly new -- the progression from monarchy to oligarchy to democracy to decline and a return to monarchy was described by Macchiavelli quite some time ago, and is observable in the history of the classical era.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, people are willing to put up with all kinds of crap before they will get off their duffs and do something about it. For the majority of Americans, life is easier than it ever has been in human history; these are not people who will be leading the charge to anything except their own bank accounts. Revolutions are something that happens in poor countries, not rich ones.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd say that Europe is doing much better. This is, after all, the community of nations that stood by while tens of thousands were being murdered in the less fashionable half of the continent just a few years ago, and I have noticed that the governments of western Europe haved rolled over on important issues every time the US throws its diplomatic and economic weight around. This isn't to say that the average European approves of their governments' actions any more than the average American does (excluding, of course, the current war hysteria), but standing around taking convenient potshots at other countries has a nasty way of blinding oneself to one's own faults. Trust me -- I'm an American, and we are world-class experts at this sort of self-destructive hypocrisy.

The use of 18th century words are confusing in a 21st century context.

The American forefathers' notion of "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness" has very little to do with what we consider "freedom" and "happiness" to mean. For them, it meant the freedom own and run their own businesses (tabacco plantations, farms, manufacturing, etc.) and not pay huge amounts of tax to the British government. Happiness to them was the ability to own a business and make a shitload of money without a government taxing their profits and regulating their responsibilities.

The difference you are drawing between the leaders of America in the 18th and 19th centuries then and the leaders of America today is in definition only. Their actions are exactly the same.. the striving for the freedom to build big businesses that operate without government intervention and to not be overly taxed.

With democratic power being undermined by multinational corporations that can buy their way into laws that are favorable to them, I find it amusing that those nations that favored power to the few are now espousing freedom for the many.

Before they were called monarchies. Now they are called multinational corporations. And the tables have turned.

I disagree. There is no "democratic" power in a democratic country unless you mean capitalistic power and military power. I agree this isn't very different from the monarchies of old. The only real difference is the preception of representation.

a lot of governments consider using OpenSource in different areas.
Microsoft fears, that once a government (especially Germany, which is a very large IT-market) "falls" to
Linux et.al., others might soon follow.
And they know that people don't return very often to Windoze. Governments even less so.

One OS is anti-American the other is Anti-democracy. Who would've thought that OS's could evolve to that point? People are even voting for the OS of there choice depending on which moral value, license, etc. each OS represents.

This gives a whole new meaning to elections. Let's just hope that politicians won't sue the OS's for unfair competition:)

What part of public funds going to support a private industry is democratic? If a government is going to spend tax dollars on software, it should use and develop software that will directly benefit taxpayers.

Teh translations of the Bundestux campaign, including their own, are may be just a little harsher than the original piece in the statement about Microsoft in the context of Democratic Values.

I may be wrong but my perception of the original German text is more along the lines that Microsoft is not an added value to the Democratic process, thus kind of implying Democracy would be better served with an Open System.

I just read on Heise [heise.de], that a study [heise.de] of Infora [infora.de] considers Windows as the better solution for the Bundestag.

According to Infora, Linux indeed has the better server abilities, and should be used for eMail servers and groupware solutions in Bundestag. But for the parliamentarians it would be much better to stay on Windows.

Seems like one of Linux's biggest problems again: It's not as good as Windows on the desktop.

An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.

Well, Windows doesn't require any less maintenance... except when you run it on a single desktop. But Windows Server really require a lot of maintenance (as do Sun, HP-UX,...). Theres no real difference here... of course you can run a windows server unmaintaned, but then it will... well, let's say "open".

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly.

"Stuff is known to break when you hit it with other heavy stuff" Nothing new here... every non-journaled FS breaks when not unmounted correctly (besides, it never lost so much data on me, but that might have been luck).

According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS.

So you don't like ReiserFS? How about XFS? Thats definitely not Beta and has been used for years in IRIX now... (besides, reiserfs has definitely been in productive years for quite some time as well, but never mind)

All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS.

Which drawbacks would that be? The one you mentioned before? No... ext3 is journaled, so it doesn't break so badly, when not unmounted...

I'll just skip the part that has has no whatsoever arguments. it is left as an exercise to the reader.

AFAIK, Reiser and XFS both have tremendous speed advantages over ext3 as well.

I've only installed Red Hat 7.2 a couple of times, but it suffers from the same problem as SUSE-Reiser in that it places the file system driver in a module in the initrd.

I much prefer the SGI install "shim" for Red Hat which has compiled XFS in the kernel. I like having a kernel that includes the filesystem support - putting it in a module is just a stupid idea. Any distribution should have its native file system compiled into the kernel, no questions asked.

Red Hat's big reason for not adopting a JFS earlier was the lack of userland repair utilities. I think that they really shafted both the Linux community and SGI, who has released a great and much-needed product. With Red Hat's support, XFS might be in the Linus kernels by now.

"The only thing you can achieve by supporting this campaign is to publically discriminate against us by accusing our products and services of being undemocratic and an obstacle to democracy."

and

"What does a decision for or against an operating system have to do with 'democratic rules'? Open Source programs [...] are not by definition a guarantee for free competition, just like the decision to use my company's products is not or was not an 'undemocratic decision'."

i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."

In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".

I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.

Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.

But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?

Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.

What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.

Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.

thanks for the translation. From KS's letter, I find the whole line of thinking incredibly stupid. Software in and of itself is not democratic or undemocratic. It's software. Software isn't a soldier holding you hostage at gun point. Sure using non MS products make it harder to share text and spreadsheet files with others, but no one is going to kill you if you use something else.

Microsoft deserves the back lash, since they claimed GPL is undemocratic. The attack dog they sent out just bit them in the ass. MS could have avoided this stupid line of arguments if they stayed away from phrases like "undemocratic, unamerican" in their marketing battle against open source. The worse part about this whole thing, is it may escalate much further and digress to a completely non-technical socio-political level. At that point, MS won't be able to win the argument, because it turns into movement and religion. There's nothing like fear to motivate a large group of people into action. I wouldn't be surprised if the arguments get more ugly and MS gets beaten up.

You know what annoys me about this is that MS has "conviently" forgotten the original context. You see what originally happened is that there was a debate on what software to use. This started out tame enough.

BUT then one of the members of parliament made a few comments on how to "decide" the best software. People would have thought, hmm, sounds interesting. UNTIL you figure out what is going on in the background. You see while this member of parliament is working for the state he was actually receiving steady income from a Microsoft solution provider. He said, but I am working for that company 1 day a month. (BTW his income was some absurd amount for 12 days of work)

While the parliament did not understand what was going on the IT industry did. As a result the LINUX community went on the offensive and declared war! (right so!) They had to do something otherwise the members of parliament would make a decision that seemed "democractic" when in fact it was not.

Hence why I am annoyed at this Microsoft Yahoo and his calls for "democracy" and doing everything correctly!!!!

But to be honest, if I was in a government, I'd be _very_ suspicious of M$ products with all their secret NSA keys installed.

If you were a government then it would probably be wise to be suspicious of any proprietary software. Then be even more suspicious of any such software which originates from outside your own country...

the Goverment situation is VERY different from here, they live in pseudo-democratic goverment where, trade unions(they are VERY unlike here) still wield large amounts of power and freedom of speech isnt a freedom, or even an option of one.

I find this statement very funny, since there are many pseudo-freedoms and pseudo-rights in the US that aren't freedoms or rights at all once you have a closer look at them.

But that's an ongoing discussion whenever Americans comment on those "communist" German ideas of democracy and vice-versa, so I'm not wanting to begin yet another flame-war on this.

Just want to say: To each his own. I'm quite happy with the "pseudo-democracy" here in Germany, far happier with many of the things going on in the US (especially right now) when it comes to democratic values...

the Goverment situation is VERY different from here, they live in pseudo-democratic goverment

Why "pseudo"? Just because we don't make the looser of an election president doesn't make a democracy "pseudo" (Sorry, couldn't resist).

The differences in IT between the US and the german market are quite subtle but strong. There is more technical competence at the reseller level and we have therefor fewer consulting companies.

Espescially the price isn't that much important here as in the US. Trust in the reseller or manufacturer on the other hand is more important.
If you've done a good job you usually get the next deal too, even if you're more expensive (up to certain level). Companies and government agaency prefer to make the deal with someone they know.

Well, Ive gotten 2 comments on my use of the term pseudo-democratic, first let me clarify, Both statements below are fairly accurate, and to each his own, Right now the US consitution is being stretched to its limit. I speak on more of a spirit of law level. The US goverment at least gives us the oppurtunity to change govt as we see fit. I think that if things here dont change, heads will roll, thats my opinion. BUT the main problem in the US isnt its goverment most people both in and outside this country dont realize this fact, We the People, have the ULTIMATE autority when it comes to the actions of our Goverment. APATHY of the people is the cause of the Current situation here in the States BUT that can be changed at any single point in time. In an odd way I was actually hoping for a serious deppression in the US economy to become a catalyst for change. I am finacially secure as is my family and have diversified investments internationally. I could use it as a springboard into politics:)

Things are good here, and with that comes APATHY. I dont dislike the German govt. in the least. It works for you and it works well, the German people have shown throught history they NEED to be LED, That is OK. It really is for the Germans. I was speaking from an information point, 90% of ALL Americans think if you have a Democratic society you have the same freedoms as here, they do not understand we are Unique in our Unconditional Freedom of Speech and other Inalienable rights guarenteed under the constitution that cannot be revoked without a large amount of bloodshed. I am curious however what situations you speak of ? Increased airline security or the DCMA, that will be struck down soon enough just as the COPA was.

I base that on the fact that the United States of America was the FIRST, MODERN democracy, It has remained unchanged for 220 years, not democracy with a king, not a republic (our definitions differ on this so ill leave it at that)

Germany and most all of Europe (UK being exceptional in this respect) Has been doing it for less than 60 year, many of those govt set up under Allied Rule(UK Included,:) To INTENTIONALLY PREVENT another European Situation Chamberlin and Roosevelt helped to create through Inaction. That said, I have NO idea what is going on in Scotland, I understand you have a Unique situation with regards to your mebership in the UK.

The Apathy that plagues this nation has little to do with a "Misguided sendse of cultural superiority" That singular item has more to do with our poor performance in the last 50 years on a Global stage. APATHY that is prevelant in this country comes from a Middle Class that make more money and owns more land than certainly anywhere in europe or elsewhere IN GERNERAL. Fat, and Content , these are the problems that lead to PATHETIC Voter turnout, Did you know only half of the registered voters bothered in the presidential election ?

The United States has been a Very Rich nation for a long while, without a war on our soil for over 125 years. Comfort, also has something to do with the apathy prevalant here. I dont want things to be any different on a socio-econoic scale than they are , but what I would like is fellow citizens that actually give a shit and do something about it even if I dont agree with them.

> The United States has been a Very Rich nation for a long while, without a war on our soil for
> over 125 years.

You keep bringing this up, what's its relevance to the point(s) you're trying to make? For the record, major contributors to America's wealth were its richness in resources and the constant influx of immigrants with tireless work ethics. The lack of wars is due in no small part to the scarcity of international borders to nations of similar size. This was achieved by usurping the land of the natives without any serious resistance.

Again, for the record, several European nations have pined for those lofty goals (i.e. resource richness, large workforce, few bordering foes) throughout the period of America's statehood. But alas, the natives resisted more forcefully, not understanding the full benefits of large-nationhood and homogenized language and values.

Actually, that is what I meant, NOT Cash , but indeed as you point out resources. We have had our economic woes, all overcomable because if nothing else our greatly varied and abundant natural resources.

That is EXACTLY the point Im tring to make. We have more than most places in the world, as a result we take things for granted, I am 30 years old and have land about 100 acres, Much of my family has the same or greater at my age, LAND in itsef , not to mention the resources contained (namley coal and oil on mine) , For some joe smoe 30 year old, paticuarly unexceptional in most aspects to have what I do is pretty uncommon overseas, (Europe, UK, etc.) NOW, not the value of that, forget that for a moment, but having what I do tend to make ME, Apathetic at times, they were going to build high dollar housing allotment near some of my property, I thought , who CARES, My land will still be there unmolested, then I thought hey itll probably raise the value, it did, but it made a pristine part of where I live look like beverly hills, when I ride my motorcycles there or shoot my guns they COMPLAIN !, GUESS WHAT Its a RURAL AREA ! Now Im pissed, but can do nothign partly due to my Apathy, If I tried I could have stopped it.

THAT my Friend is my point, and it does go to the point of the original article. Things are DIFFERENT here and in Germany, what is important to you is not neccesarily important to us and vice-verse. The POINT of this thead a it spun off was We, In the United States, have the power to do nearly anything we want with regards to changing every law on the books, we are typically just too, "fat and Happy" to give a shit. I dont know how things are at a local level of goverment in Germany now. But in the states, a town of say 25,000 people, is litteraly RUN by probably less that 50 individuals, NOT because there is room for no more voices, not because of some unssen elite ruling class, NOBODY CARES to RUN FOR OFFICE !, An intelligent person with a clean background (not an axe-murderer) can pretty much pick an office and run with a DAMM good chance of winning it give ANY effort.

The saddest part is we have freedoms and abilities to change any law we choose, Unfortunatley most choose to do NOTHING.......

Ok, I can see the words, and individually I can even look them up and find them in the dictionary. But taken as a whole--what do they mean? I'm stymied.

-the "mindset is different"--how?
-usability not important--how? As an aside, the "form follows function" school of design was born in Germany. The US prefer the "mine is bigger than yours" approach.
-pushing something on them isn't going to fly--what on earth do you mean?

Overall, I'd rate the entropy of this post at 95 on a scale of 0 to 100.

Germans, are typically speaking very detail oriented, as well very quality concious, and in all more technically astute. This has been my experience, I am 1/2 German and lived with a Prussian stepfather my whole life, I have traveled to Germany in youth and recently, extensivly, and entertained German clients in business dealings. So Im not talking out my ass, I actually am familiar with the "mindset" I actually would probably fall more into this than many of my American contemporaries.

I did NOT say usbablity was not important to you, I said, It may not be, trying to make a point to my american fellows that what we find important you may not, and trying to shove something down your throat geared to our market is not a good idea.

Yeah, mine is bigger than yours, Ill agree with that assesment of the American philosiphy on a products marketablity.

What I also reffered to, OK, in say about 85 , how many german computers were on the market and popular ? Ok now remeber back and look at the computers in the american market ? Were they meant to fill the same requirments ? No, Were they meant so any moron could use it , ? no....
Were they fuctional ? Absolutley, How long dod you hang on to CPM ? Longer than here, why ? It was better , not marketed better, just better to a point.

We have different needs, some cultural some a different way of approaching problems. The Germans, in business at least , make a decison based on the merits of a product than the marketing behind it. This is a good thing, why has this whole thread been taken as a troll ? Beacuse I said pseudo-democratic ?

If you read the original post what it quite clearly states to an American (its intended reading audience) is OUR need are NOT the SAME as YOURS. If that is untrue, please tell me and we can shove all the crap software that was designed for the american marketplace down your throats. No ? Why not ? OH, wait, ther German requirments, and need, as well as percetions of what important in a business and computer applicationa redifferent, imagine that.....

Mainly because the original post was extremely unclear in meaning. Here's an example:

> OK, in say about 85, how many german computers were on the market and popular ? Ok now remeber
> back and look at the computers in the american market?

I have no idea if you mean that there were many popular German computers, or few. The answer certainly isn't self-evident. All I know is that every kid in the early to mid 80s in Germany craved first a C64, then an Amiga. Not terribly German AFAIK. German computer manufacturers were mainly in the minicomputer and mainframe business, IIRC.

Anyway, I'm German but have lived for the last 15 years in Australia and the US, so I can tell you from experience that Germans and Americans are more alike than different. Germans (used to) hate to buy on credit, they value education and the arts, and they speak German, not English. Other than that, the similarities are striking: both are pathologically self-important, both pine for a house on their own piece of land, both love cars, both work too hard for not enough money. The German love for quality is either a myth, or dying fast, because I haven't seen any more quality conscious Germans (at the production end) than Americans. Sure, both like BUYING quality, but if it's lacking, all they do is whine. Incidentally, the similarity is hardly accidental, considering the percentage of German ancestry in the US.